this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
254 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3490 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump's falsehoods — and what Democrats say is the threat he poses to democracy — have even some Democrats questioning whether their party should accept a loss in the Nov. 5 election.

While 19% of Republicans say Trump should reject the election results if he loses, 12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sortition is connected to population numbers, so it makes the weight of a vote in the majority equal to the proportion of that majority, and same with minorities. It can't be compared to electoral college and filibuster.

It also is one way to kill the degenerate dominance of two major parties.

Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.

I see where you are coming from in the context of the US, but our world had a democracy that took will of the majority to the absolute, it took just a couple of years for it to turn into dictatorship. Then after like 60 years that system (which never died on paper) was resurrected, with not the best results either. That'd be Soviets.

Well, and there are many countries around frankly with "good enough" (in year 1999) political systems, which don't seem good enough anymore.

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

"Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of."

It doesn't. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn't make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I'd say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren't due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I'm talking about policies with less than 50% support.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less.

If your group's percentage is 45% and the chance of its common position becoming reality is less than 45%, which it is with voting as opposed to sortition, it is.

It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

More people disagreeing with me than agreeing doesn't mean that they should always have their way (because there's more of them) and I never. It means that proportionally to our numbers sometimes they should have their way and sometimes I mine.

This is simply closer to the real wishes of the voters. And that can be delivered by sortition.

Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

And I'm saying that that minority-supported policies should pass proportionally to that minority. 20% percent minority included, for example.

If you are afraid of what that 20% percent will make you do if their representatives get up through sortition - well, shouldn't give any central government the ability to hurt you that much.

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Eh, no. What good then are the percentages of representatives?

The whole point is that policies should average to matching what the average citizen wants. Not the majority.

It's fair - sometimes the majority gets their way and the minority has to obey. Sometimes other way around. With frequency according to percentages.

That's the point. Actual power to make decisions should be balanced by representation of positions in the society. Not held by majority.